A maze is a puzzle in which there is only one route that leads to an exit.*

While travelling your path, you encounter many situations where at least one choice must be made of which way to go. There is no straight path that leads from entrance to exit.

In some cases, there is only one choice: the path you are on reaches a dead end, and you must turn or go back to the first open path available.

The path through the maze is long, circuitous, confusing, and frustrating, especially if it is a real, physical maze made of dense hedges that are taller than your own height.

If you have a poor sense of direction and no reference points within the maze or overhead, you can become lost and in serious trouble, because the way back to where you started is just as difficult to find as the way out. Unless you made fresh footprints, unrolled a ball of string behind you, or left a trail of visible objects, you need guidance from overhead, or perhaps a solution to the maze that is shown on your smartphone to get out.

If you are like me, even when you get back to the starting point, it looks different from the way it looked before, and you still have the perception of disorientation, which is extremely uncomfortable.

Some of us should never attempt going through a complex physical maze, even with a companion. In the maze of our life experience, most of us need a map, drawn by someone who succeeded in finding a way through to an exit.

Or you could just hack your way through with an axe or machete–although it defeats the purpose of the learning experience, some people choose this method of dealing with their challenges.

*We all hope that life is not like that, and each of us hopes that there is more than one route leading to the desired exit. IS there? It depends on who designed the maze, and for what purpose.

]]>https://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2017/07/15/the-maze/feed/2b4i4getThe Democrat Debatehttps://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/the-democrat-debate/
https://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/the-democrat-debate/#respondTue, 02 Aug 2016 17:25:52 +0000http://b4i4get.wordpress.com/?p=715Continue reading "The Democrat Debate"]]>During the Democrat Debate in October 2015, Hillary Clinton said, “Diplomacy is not about getting to the best solution. It’s about balancing the risk.”

I have never heard any politician (or any non-politician) say this before. Is it a case of accidentally telling the truth? And is it true?

In dealing with international contention, do the diplomats actually not even try to reach the best (or ANY) solution to the problem—i.e., is this a secondary goal and an incidental outcome of balancing the risk to all parties?

What a revelation!—and a possible explanation for the behavior and apparent motivation of politicians and diplomats. They truly do not care about the effects of their negotiations and it is not their job to care. It might even make it harder for them to do their job if they did care. Instead, they approach problems like mathematicians, accountants, and historians.

The Law of Attraction: “Thoughts held in mind produce after their kind.”

“Think positively and you will attract success, health, and wealth.” “Our supply is unlimited; we only need to claim it.” As modern Christians, we have all heard these sayings. And all we have to do is to get rid of our negative beliefs and think positively?

This is only an intellectualized way of begging God for what we need. “I believe, Lord—please feed me.” Like baby birds with our mouths wide open, or a pet dog standing on his hind legs, as he was taught: see, I believe—please feed me, we plead.

Jesus said, “I am come that you might have life, and have it abundantly.” He did NOT say he had come so that we could be successful, live forever, and have more money than we know what to do with.

How is it that by thinking positive thoughts, we are supposed to attract prosperity? We can have the mental idea or intention to change or use something, but we have to use physical means to affect the physical world.

Illogical

It is possible that a person or animal could pick up my thought as a disturbance travelling through the magnetic field–and correctly interpret it–but I don’t believe that physical objects can be (directly) affected by thought.

Electricity just sits there until it is moved: a constant generated push on one end and a demand when a connection is made. (The water did not become wine until it was poured out: a total metaphor for idea + effort = effect.)

The main problem with the “Positive Thinking” method is that if everyone were thinking positive thoughts to attract abundance, there would not be the necessary balance for the transfer of energy to occur. All demand and no push.

Also, as you know, “positive” does not attract “positive” in the physical world (though it may attract “less positive.”) Negative electrons are held in their orbits by a central positive nucleus, which usually contains other charged particles that must balance electrically, or else it is unstable.

So a healthy person needs to balance optimistic confidence with enough ‘what ifs’ to prepare himself for obstacles.

The spiritual realm or level does not work differently from the physical realm or level. They are analogous. We have heard it claimed that there is an unlimited supply of all we need on the spiritual level, and all we need to do is to get access to it, make a connection through our higher consciousness by practicing meditation. However, what we actually receive are ideas, clarified perhaps by the removal of emotional baggage, which makes space for the formation of “Yes, why not?” thoughts. And in all probability, if you work on a win-win proposition, you will get cooperation, you will succeed, and so will others, who will in turn, help you. This works, this happens—I know.

I finished the book this morning, and have gone back to clarify a few points. But I will still have to re-read the whole thing.

Here is what I have to say now:

The ideas that I didn’t understand (and may never be able to gain insight into):

Light—is not physical; relative velocity is the same as absolute velocity; how light receptors work in humans, animals and plants.

Quantum physics—how objects and particles can be/not be/or be in 2 or more places at once because they pulse in and out of existence.

Time—is non-linear.

***********************************

What I did understand (thank you!)

Yes, I agree that the mind is a delusion generator. Intelligence works within the structure of learning. Awareness is unlearning; it removes wrong beliefs.

But the problem of a Plan, having a known End, co-existing with Free Will, has effectively been solved (for me) by calling God “All That Is”, and God’s Will “Probability.” (What an idea!)

There is no such thing as Truth, especially Absolute Truth. Since the existence of the universe depends on opposites, only probability can rule whatever happens within it.

There is one sentence at the end of page 72 that I would like to have the author explain: “More to the point, there is something about eyes that supports God’s inevitable reassembly.” Nothing more was said about it. If I can get Mr. Adams to explain it to me, I will pass it on to you.

a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something.

the process of personally observing, encountering, or undergoing something.

the observing, encountering, or undergoing of things generally as they occur in the course of time.

knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered, or undergone (as opposed to what one has read about, been taught, or has heard from someone else.)

5. Philosophy: the totality of the cognitions given by perception; all that is perceived, understood, and remembered.

(Courtesy of Dictionary.com)

Author’s observation: an experience is a concept, not a thing. It is a set of thoughts, sensations, emotions, and beliefs that is individual to (from the point of view of) each person who has observed, encountered, or undergone (something).

———————————————————————-

Illogical

Approaching the end of our lifetime as the identity we have come to know and love, and having no memory or premonition of any other, we tend to dwell on the question, “What will happen to ‘me’ when the body wears out and ceases to function?” Also, we wonder where we were before we took residence in this body.

I experience an “I” in the physical form that I find myself at birth. The limitations and strengths of the body are the first things to be dealt with, and if others do not feed me, I will die. The culture, resources, and institutions of the society in which I mature have all been built up by others as part of their experience. Physical monuments, books, legends, and skills learned and passed on, are now shapers and teachers of the “I” that experiences life in this physical interface.

Is consciousness a property of life, as primitive in the bacterium as its physical form, hardly aware of anything beyond its own needs, but creative and imaginative in the human form, where it reaches out to the depths of life beneath it, and to the known universe beyond?

If so, where does conscious awareness go when the body is no longer functional? Back to where it came from before we were born? Does it have an existence of its own? Does it break off in pieces (fractals) to inhabit new bodies as they are formed and separated (shed or peeled off) from the “mother?” And does it rejoin the universal fractal after the body no longer functions as its sensory interface? Where and what is “home?”

Is there any continuity that any of us can be personally aware of? Can consciousness survive the absence of a physical interface? Is physical form the only form that can support conscious awareness and experience? It is the only one we know of, though we imagine others. And life in this form is often difficult.

Truth:I am conscious while I am awake and aware of this body’s sensations and this brain’s impressions. I am not conscious of the sensations or impressions of any other body, although I can imagine them, and [a trained technician] can sometimes measure them with instruments that make electronic images of their waveforms.

When I am asleep, I am not unconscious, since I can still react to discomfort and external stimuli, and my brain is sorting thoughts and building habits, as well as replacing cells and keeping the body systems functioning in equilibrium. These are things that I can’t do consciously (intentionally). They are electro-chemical in nature and marvelous to observe.

But when I am unconscious, I am not aware of anything (and the electro-chemical processes will still go on.) If the body dies in an unconscious state, I will be unaware that death has occurred—or of anything else, since my conscious awareness is unsupported by a functioning physical interface. What am I and where am I then? Do the effects–all that “I” have experienced, enjoyed, suffered, appreciated, loved, hated, feared, wondered, built, achieved, destroyed, learned, and created—including offspring—go away and become someone else’s experience, because “I” as the experiencer, no longer have a means of experiencing anything? Icannot actually experience my own death!

IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE ME? Life goes on for those I leave behind, and they will remember me for a while. But DO I THEN EVEN EXIST AS “I”? I only know that none of us can conceive of not existing—nor of a beginning or end of time, the universe, infinity, eternity, or the nature of God. It’s not so much that human beings are limited in their ability to comprehend the non-material or spiritual realm: the brain is unable to think (reason) without limits. That’s why it’s just as hard to imagine having an immortal soul as it is to imagine NOT having one–or just as impossible to prove that there is a God as it is to prove that there is NO God. Finding limits or placing them is the foundation of analytical, rational, deductive, logical reasoning. Anything outside the limits of reason is a matter of conjecture or faith. This would include such things as Near Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, visions, ghosts, prophetic dreams, extrasensory perception, alien abduction, channeling, laying- on of hands, and intuitive suggestions. (Yet there are documented claims of these.)

We can never know, by exercising the intellect, the answers to the questions I have posed here. Why do I care? Can I do anything about it? Should I believe a book or tradition because my parents did, or out of fear of execution or Hell if I don’t? There is only relative truth in the realm of experience, and there is no such thing as Absolute Truth: anything that has an opposite is relative, so “Absolute Truth” has no meaning and cannot be defined. It is that which is.

“I think; therefore I am” (at this moment.) What I believe about the next moment is a matter of choice. Perhaps I will survive the chasm of death by taking a leap of faith, by loosening my grip on this world and turning with expectation to whatever awaits me. It can’t be worse than clinging to physical life, however painful, out of fear of the unknown. Perhaps what awaits me is only a long… dreamless… sleep, as I dissolve into the dark matter of the universe, waiting to become.

]]>https://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/more-questions/feed/0b4i4getIllogicalReblog of an Excellent Articlehttps://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/reblog-of-an-excellent-article/
https://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/reblog-of-an-excellent-article/#respondThu, 26 Feb 2015 23:16:38 +0000http://b4i4get.wordpress.com/?p=696Continue reading "Reblog of an Excellent Article"]]>“Ed.–this is the best and clearest exposition I have ever read on the subject of the completed soul vs the evolving soul and the need vs desire for reincarnating in a physical body.

” Question: ‘If I understand what you have written about soul evolution, you basically say it does not happen, that the soul is already complete. How do you square this with the fact of evolution itself? You surely can’t be saying human evolution does not exist. The evidence is too overwhelming. I’d love to see you address this. ‘”

“Physical evolution is an undeniable fact. I am totally intrigued by the sciences that look into our planet’s past and piece together the ever-evolving story of earth and its inhabitants, which obviously includes us. When considering the notion of evolution in a spiritual context, many people mistakenly assume that the evolutionary process is driven by some cosmic need to express a completed state of perfection in the visible world. The process of evolution is seen as leading to something.

“This is a false assumption. The thing that drives evolution is adaptation to the present environment. The successful species adapts to environmental changes. The species that do[es] not adapt goes extinct. In other words, the organisms that we see alive today have achieved the state of …adaptation to the current environment. They are fulfilling their purpose and are currently as perfect as they need to be (italics mine).

“In the spiritual community, there is an idea that the human brain and body will one day be so highly evolved as to express the full spectrum of what we call Christ Consciousness. This too is a false assumption. The physical brain and body will never be able to express the infinite capacity of the soul. This is not what the physical organism is designed to do. The physical brain and body are designed to allow the soul, for whatever reasons we choose, to interface with the material environment. If you decide to see all the country you live in, for example, you can jump in your car and travel. When your interest in this kind of travel begins to wane, you stop.

“In spiritual circles it is commonly accepted that we each have a spiritual or astral body. This body is seen as having no restrictions. We accept that it never gets ill, hungry, fatigued and is not restricted by time and space. When some describe the evolutionary goal of our physical body, they describe what the astral body already does. They envision the physical body evolving to a state of non-restricted immortality already enjoyed by the astral body. This is redundant and totally misses the point of the physical body. The physical body, like the car, allows us to interface with the material world. When we no longer wish to do this, we stop taking on a body.

“The physical body and brain are now perfectly adapted, as evolved as they need to be, to experience our sojourn in the material realm. This material vehicle is perfectly adapted to our current environment. It is not the purpose of the body to become like the soul. The body and its brain will never reach a capacity where it can fully accommodate the complete spectrum of the soul’s capacity. This fact of physical restriction should not be taken as evidence of an unevolved soul.

“The body is subject to and restricted by material laws. Those who think it is the mark of soul evolution to be able to levitate the physical body, walk on water or travel without the aid of some material vehicle are attempting to force the body into service it was never intended to perform. The body has but one purpose and that is to allow interaction with the material realm. If we would rather levitate than walk, then we will stop taking on a physical body. The fact that we have taken on a physical body, with all its restrictions and maintenance needs, means that we have done it, not because the universe is forcing us to learn lessons yet unlearned, but because we, for whatever reason, wanted to.

“I believe when we took on this body that we knew what we were getting into. The lifespan of the average body is but a flash in the pan of our immortal existence. The fact that we lose sight of our immortality through a preoccupation with the care and keeping of the body does nothing to hinder or change the nature of the soul. We’re not here in this body to develop the soul. To the contrary, we’re here in this body as evidence that our soul is so developed that we’ve decided to take a trip into the material plane.

“To take this trip we have taken on the most highly evolved vehicle available. Evolution is not a means to some future end. It is a process whose success is measured by the fact that it is currently producing an organism capable of fully interfacing with the present environment. Measuring the capacity or state of the soul by weighing it against the present capacity of the brain and body is comparing apples to oranges. The body and its brain will never be able to express the full capacity of the completed soul. It doesn’t need to.”–J. Douglas Bottorff

]]>https://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/reblog-of-an-excellent-article/feed/0b4i4getThe Law of Divine Orderhttps://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/the-law-of-divine-order/
https://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/the-law-of-divine-order/#respondTue, 15 Jul 2014 17:25:00 +0000http://b4i4get.wordpress.com/?p=694Continue reading "The Law of Divine Order"]]>Some of us may be stuck in using metaphysical “buzzwords” that cause us to assume “the universe” will take care of what we need, or some situation, if only we “surrender”, believe we have already received it, and let our positive thoughts attract positive results. It doesn’t work quite that way. We still have to be the hands, feet, ears, eyes, and brains of the process.

I think there is a natural order, as a law (not a force or mechanism) concerning how the world works for civilized people, and how human nature works: cause and effect, act and react. If you are wise, you have learned that there must be some benefit for everyone involved in any deal or contract. If you invoke Divine Order, you commit to working for a good or love-inspired outcome for everyone involved. With this attitude, you often find that obstacles disappear, change, or are no longer a problem, and people and authorities are willing to give you the help you need. That’s what happened to me when I applied for a place in the PTA Program in 1991 at UTPA. I also found that some decisions I had made many years ago, and some work I had done, prepared the way for success when I needed it.

If you don’t think of a [universal] Law as being an edict that is handed down by some authority, but as a consistency that can be relied upon to operate in all similar conditions, then it just IS, whether we believe in it or not, and it doesn’t change unless there is a fundamental change in the make-up or nature of the universe.
That idea is hard to wrap one’s mind around, since humans are used to thinking in practical microcosms, where the origin of the Law appears to be from “above”, from a more vast or general realm, as part of a Plan.

Oh, but there surely must be a Plan, we think! Some higher authority surely must know why I am here, why these things are happening, and how and when it will all finally resolve after a certain divine being returns to earth. Maybe not. A Plan implies an intentional outcome, and if that is the case, then it is already decided what that outcome will be, and nothing I do makes any difference [except to me.] No matter which choices I make, or how much I learn, it does not change the outcome. So much for free will.

So I don’t think there is a Plan in the sense that it is a Destiny, either personal or collective. I think each of us has enormous power to make our desires and intentions take form, and it is up to us to get the cooperation of others who have their own desires and intentions. As a race of human conscious beings, we also have enormous power to shape our future on this planet and in this universe, as long as the universal Law is recognized for what it is, and properly used (in co- operation) –not obeyed.

I just heard on the radio news that the Texas high school sports team names of Warriors, Indians, Redskins, and Rebels will be banned. What will we now replace them with? Kitty-cats, Hamsters, Bunnies, and Puppy-dogs?

Well, to be politically correct in our new gentle society, there should be nothing in the names to denote killing, warlike aggression, ethnic slurs or stereotypes, or anti-social behavior. Really? Isn’t the idea of physical sports games to score more goals or points than the other team by out-running them or blocking them or knocking them down and taking the ball away from them?

Football and hockey are especially violent. Players are required to wear padded uniforms and helmets, but they still get hurt. Many men–and some women–enjoy the primitive aggression of these games, either by active participation or by watching the games from the stands or on a wide-screen TV with other “fans.” The more action, the more they yell and cheer.

Does this help to vent or provide a healthy outlet for normal aggressive urges? It is claimed that without sports and other dangerous competitions, a society controlled by laws and regulations against aggression and injury will in time turn against each other or the government with riots and destruction. (Prediction: One day it will be a major discovery that terrorists were never allowed to play or enjoy viewing football games with their friends.)

Football teams are usually named for animals with predatory or aggressive behavior, though there are notable exceptions. Team sports are competitive, and someone is expected to win. But to take away any “hurt feelings” caused by politically-incorrect names, perhaps we should change them to something more socially and culturally responsible.But wait: that could have the psychological effect of taking all the “fight” out of the players. And do you think anyone would watch a game between theCleveland Cooperators and the Washington Compromisers?

]]>https://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/on-joy-or-lack-thereof/feed/0b4i4getPerfect Expression of FormThe Generic Linguistic Placeholderhttps://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/the-generic-linguistic-placeholder/
https://b4i4get.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/the-generic-linguistic-placeholder/#commentsSat, 27 Apr 2013 01:52:07 +0000http://b4i4get.wordpress.com/?p=675Continue reading "The Generic Linguistic Placeholder"]]>“WIDGET” is my favorite term to call an object when I don’t know its proper name. I first heard it used at least ten years ago, and was charmed by it immediately, but it is much older than that. Its first use in print is said to be as a “hypothetical product” of a factory in a 1924 play. I suspect that’s how the now legitimate generic name for a small, functional application on a webpage was born: some web designer did not know what else to call a small functional application, so s/he called it a “widget.” And it stuck. Now everyone with a webpage, blog, or smartphone knows what a widget is.

This is not true of the perhaps dozens of other habitual terms that we substitute for the correct one because we can’t think of what it is called, or never knew in the first place. The most popular slang term now used among younger people is “thingie.”Before that one came along, what you used as a placeholder depended on what your friends were saying, or what you grew up hearing in whatever part of the country you lived.

I’m going to list every generic placeholder that I have ever heard used in place of the correct name for an object (or person.) I invite you to add one or more that are new to me, in your comments.